Man Bites Blog

Mark Hemingway writes:  (emphasis added)

I suggested that the Wilkersons might have sacrificed by working less-desirable jobs, if that choice (or those choices) meant they could more adequately provide for their daughter. I said that a married couple that has been talking about having kids for years, but has failed to sacrifice financially or make basic economic preparations to pay for their first kid, is acting irresponsibly. That’s hardly ‘anti-life.’ It’s common sense.  How many people are in less than optimal jobs because of good benefits for their dependents?

And that’s exactly my point.  That many people are in jobs they hate for the sake of insurance is a bug, not a feature. 

Another way to ask that last question is how many dollars are being sucked out of the economy by people working in less than optimal jobs for the sake of health insurance?

There seems to be this base assumption that there is a moral imperative to work a 40 hour a week job if you want health insurance.  That is exactly what is being challenged.

Is enabling families like the Wilkersons and Frosts to work at jobs that maximize their talents and  their time with families really that awful a use of government resources?  Yes, I know they “should” have planned better, and they “should” not give up jobs with insurance.

I’m not arguing that they are morally entitled to S-CHIP, but that for a party that claims to be pro-family , pro-small business, and pro-freedom, it seems like S-CHIP offers reasonable bang for the buck, particularly compared to what other things teh GOP might do with that money, like invade Iran or corporate tax cuts.

Does the GOP really want to be the party of forcing people into life-sucking 40 hour a week jobs for huge companies for fear that they won’t have insurance?  Seems like a loser to me.

A couple more notes on how stupid the conservative blogosphere’s villification of the Frost familt is:

• If the Frost family credited tax cuts, rather than S-CHIP, for their ability to continue to function, I am quite sure the Bush Administration and the GOP would hold them up as examples of working families struggling and receiving much-needed help from the federal government.  They would be in the room when Bush signed the bill enacting the tax cuts.  They would be in the audience at the State of the Union address, and called out as an example of families moving forward thanks to these great tax cuts.  If any Democrat challenged the worthiness of the Frost family for the government’s largesse, the GOP would declare it part of the Democrat’s “war on families.”

  But they don’t, and there’s a reason for that — tax cuts don’t help families like the Frosts that much!  They help rich folks. 

  In a recent diavlog, Mark Schmitt had a good riff (video) on how silly the Republican’s totemic belief in tax cuts as the only possible channel through which to deliver benefits to people is.

• I agree with the notion that same sex marriage would hurt traditional families, but the effect is indirect, and it’s a tough sell to those not disposed to accept it.

  When the same party that opposes same sex marraige starts gleefully pulling health benefits away from families, it makes the sell that much harder.  This program has a direct impact on families, whereas the same sex marriage effect is indirect.

  Who wants to volunteer to explain to a same sex couple how them getting married damages families, but pulling back S-CHIP doesn’t?  I sure don’t.

Guest-blogging for Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam nails it:

I’m late to the story of the Frost family, but it perfectly illustrates the tension between “pro-family” conservatism and “anti-statist” conservatism.

<snip>

Here’s my question: Would the world really be better off if, say, the four Frost children saw far less of their parents than they already do? I ask because we could imagine a world in which the Frost parents worked (even) longer hours a jobs that provided health care benefits, which would take an emotional toll not only on them but on their children, particular in light of the impact of the car accident.

Exactly.

I don’t think there’s a tent big enough to hold people genuinely concerned about family values (as my liberal readers roll their eyes at my failure to enclose that term in scare quotes) and those whose first instinct upon hearing the story of the Frost family is to sneer and dig around so that they can find out if they’re really needy.

I know. I know trotting a 12 year old out to make an argument is cowardly politics (though no more cowardly than hiding behind General Petraeus and the soldiers. ) I know that tax money isn’t free and comes at the expense of outher hard working people.

But jeez — these folks seem to be taking such glee in proclaiming the Frost family unworthy of benefits. As if the biggest problem we have in this country is that somewhere, somebody in the middle class might be taking advantage of a health care program designed for the working poor.

Plus, as Reihan wrote and I said earlier, it seems like this program is enabling the Frosts to structure their work lives in a way that’s beneficial to their family. Now, that may not have been the intended consequence of the program, but I have a very hard time working up much outrage over it. Isn’t the GOP supposed to be pro-family?

And if you think the Frost family is such an unsympathetic face of S-CHIP, what about those who stand to benefit most from taking away their benefits and cutting taxes (particularly capital gains and inheritance taxes) instead? I don’t think the GOP would come out ahead in that analysis.

No. And now they want to put Rudy Giuliani up there and tell me I better vote for him because Hillary Must Be Stopped.

Eh. No. You can’t run a war. You can’t do anything to confront the Culture of Death and are retreating on those issues. You can’t even evacuate a city during a hurricane. But you can damn well make sure that a family doesn’t present take advantage of a program for “working class” families when they’re really middle class.

It’s going to take more than scaring me with the possibility of a president whose husband presided over eight years of peace and prosperity during which free trade was expanded and welfare was reformed to make me pull the lever for you.

And I don’t think I’m alone.

At least that’s the gist I get from this Mark Steyn post and this InstaPundit post.

Apparently, if you have kids and want them to be insured, then just keep plugging at a 40-hour a week job at a big employer.  Don’t try to start your own business; don’t work for a small business.  Just plug away.

I know, as hardships go, it’s hardly Dickensian.  But it’s an ineffeciency.  There’s lots of people working at less than their potential because they need the health insurance. 

Apparently the GOP wants that to continue.

I am a software engineer with two young daughters, one of whom has cystic fibrosis.  Iam the sole breadwinner in our family, working a 40 hour a week job, with a second job to make ends meet.  My wife takes care of the girls, with a weekly job that adds a bit to our income.

I suspect I would be happier, using a greater range of skills, and making more money, if I were working on an hourly contract basis rather than as a full-time salaried employee.  We would probably also both be happier if we could more evenly divide work and childcare responsibilities.

But that is unthinkable, because I need to hold down a salaried position in order to have health insurance, and with a daughter with cystic fibrosis not having health insurance is not workable.  If we want one of us to stay home with the girls, it must be me who holds down the salried position, as the salary my wife could command would be insufficient to support our family. 

Expanded S-CHIP would change that equation — we would have a safety net in place, and know that Meagan would not be without health coverage should the demand for my services be less than I suspect it would be.

As it is, the economy is getting less than optimal input from me and my wife, and we are both less happy than we could be.

This isn’t about us wanting to work the system; this is about wanting a robust safety net in place so we can more confidently take risks.   I think it’s worth it.